Oimat

Hi, it's surprising that there isn't any topic for this ! So now, please enjoy my first recording of a game with aplha123 ! And put yours, of course

Trebuchet *_*

Hum, sorry for not being able to take part of discussion before. Nevertheless, that's a very big improvement for slingers But for elef... what have you done that ? The got killed in 2 shots against archers, in comparison of battering rams.

Pedro : can you seriously say that a x2 against all infantry is the most basic unit ? Let's put battering ram in age 2 too

I just played against alpha123 with athenians, and one thing shocked me. They have slingers age 1, whose costs 50 rock instead of wood. Because it costs rock instead of wood, you can do a very big army of slingers in age 1, what isn't normal. Why rock is faster than wood ? Put your women on food, cav on food, your 4 first infantry on wood. Then first barch of slingers on rock (you start with 300 rock so it's fine). Then, do a batch of women, and then only slingers on rock. For wood, the 4 infantry is enough to house. So i propose to remove slingers of athenians age 1.

I'll see that. I have some problems with that but i think i would handle that in a few times with trainig Currently i'm able to do this : http://image.noelsha...0533544-0ad.png I have to perfect that Edit :After a discussion with Pureon, i think HTML-CSS is easir to use than blockdiag.It's easier to use, generate, and flexible. Plus, blockdiag doesn't allow to have centered organigrams, so it's no very beautiful.

Ok, very good work people ! A friend found an incredible program do to tech trees called "blockdiag" (http://blockdiag.com/en/index.html) which is pretty easy to learn and who gives beautiful organigrams. So i'm still earning the basis of the syntax, but this week i should have done a first tech tree. And after it'll be easy to be improved i think.

There is a pad http://piratepad.eu/Dj9wtFr9Ev for brainstorming. In no color are the tech already implemented, and the rest are our ideas. You're welcome !

Ok, now i have little more concret propositions, while you get continuing debate :þ (don't hurry too much, i have difficulty to read so much posts x') ). So... 1/ slingers has to have "only" 1.5 or 1.25 of bonus instead of x2, because not every civs has them. 2/ Spartans has a infantry unit who has 12 of speed woalking, so more than cav. That's very unpleasant. FUrthemore, they have armors and spears, and are faster than macedonian skirmishers. Their speed should not be more than 10.5 3/ Iberians should have a decent ship for transporting troops. 4/ Roman army camp shouldn't have more than 20 soldiers guarrisoned in. Other things i don't have ideas But i really want to have your feedbacks in relation of defensive-agressive civs Edit : because i forgot 2 things : 5/ for preventing spartan unfair rush, give 6 females and 2 males at the begining for every civs would be enough. Like that, you have 2 guys to prevent from early cav, gathering rates are the same but you can't attack minute 1 with 9 spartant spearmen. And to be fair, for all civ. 6/ For the rushes being harder and more balanced, women should fire some arrows if they are in the cc, and only in the cc.

Is that really necessary ? The biggest your economy grows, the fastest and strongest your army will be. If you have good eco, you have very few chances of losing. I don't understand this argument, so.

Guys, this topic isn't for tech tree but for global balance between civs

And why not, as one game i had (i think it was during a scenario), instead of walls, something like this ?

The probleme isn't that it works only with spartans or not. The probleme is that, like you said, the strategy works with a lot of civs. It's not normal that could exist a winning strategy on minute 3 of the game without the other could resist if he hasn't the good civ to counter principal ennemie unit. One idea i came up on IRC was to begin with 8 females instead of 4-4. With new gathering rates, it's still playable, but you can't rush with 9 people in minute 2. I totaly agree with you. But just eliminate some thing op, like spartan rush (or anyelse civ rush on minute 3 uncounterable) and Hannibal stats. For you, which are the weakest civ ? Arf, and other question : what did you think about my proposition of defensive-agreesive civs ? Ones very tough but who hardly kill, the other ones that kill efficiently but very vulnerable too. Sighvatr : me too for designing tech tree I'll propose something next week perhaps :þ

So now, let's do local balancing, because i already told about global balance. Of course, EVERYTHING is debatable Athenians : It's said they have one of the stronger navy but no quinquirem, only triremes. Historicaly it's right. So, just put them a very good tech for armour. Plus, they have a basic infantry which costs wood and metal, but not food. So it's very hard to train them .Slingers are always a plus. Their walls on neutral territory is a good idea. But able on age 2, so possibly after the firsts raids against you. And walls should allow you to prevent raids. In general, i think walls and palissades are too expensive for the surface they can protect on early game. Why not put a cheap wall at the early game (costing rock so no wood) and improving it by tech (and more expensive so) ? Like that, could be also used in early game. Athenians dispose of good champions, good siege engines, so a good civ. Perhaps do them more defensive ? Britons : Hum... Without dogs, britons would have been nothing in this game. Put them decent infantry or decent cav, as you want. Their ships, like gauls one, are very powerfull, that's good. But in late game, when the map is full of forts, their battering rams are useless. Needs 2 minutes with 3 battering rams to destroy a single fort. In general, battering rams of iberians, gauls, britons, spartans and others are as expensive as roman's or athenian's one, but much more powerless. If you want powerless battering ram, do them cheaper., so quantity will counter quality. Carthaginian : WIth romans, i really don't understand carth. They have mercenarys, lots of good stuff, but no one says they are OP. Why ? I don't even find the reason of that But so, i think this civ is on of the better balanced civ. Powerfull if you have a ton of metal, but no useless if you lack of it. Their heros like Hannibal are op too... In general, no one civ should be dependent on only wood or metal. Somes are too dependant of metal or wood. Gauls : Same as britons. But with less features. They really need improvement to diversify their game. And to make them good strategies. Better units and outposts is a solution. And battering rams... Currently they have a tech which gives ressources for each building destroyed. Would be better for each unit killed, because destroying buildings it's in very late game, when enemy has forts and you can't do nothing thanks to your very useless battering rams. Iberians : The starting walls are a very good thing. But their towers costs 300rock instead of 100wood and 100 rock, and are supposed to be much more powerfull than other ones. But the only thing that changes it's that it takes 200s instead of 120s comparing to normal towers to be built, and have double of hp. No more powerful arrows or more range... For 300 rock, we should have like a mini fort. Longer range than mauryans archers x') , 10 guarrison people (instead of 5) and a bit more powerfull arrows. I think they need too another tech for towers in age 3, something like a fire rain to counter siege engines. In naval, they sucks a lot. Their flameship can defeat quinquirem without great effort but the only other ship is merchant ship... which can contains only 15 people. To transport people on another island, you need so like 4-5 ships. I think allowing putting 25 pop in a merchant (so no attack no arrows) ship would be better. With that, iberians, should be good Macedonians : I pretty like macedonians thanks to their fast infantry which allows fast raids. They are the only ones with the Heliopolis, a very interesting siege engine indeed. Their tech with 5 random units per baracks should be allowed in age 1. Like that, when you do yours barracks in age 2, you'll have your units. Because later it's too late, you'll do forts no barracks, so won't be a good investissement . Or allow this tech to give you 5 units from each barrack and each fort built. I don't have much more ideas of how balancing macedonians. They are a bit weak, but it's ok for a first exam of balancing. Mauryans : It's still an alpha civ. Their archers are too much strong. If you give them less hack armour, so swordsmen and cav could easily kill them, i think it will be better. I like it's elephant storage, it's a good idea. A pitty other civs can't have it. Doing 2 different buildings for champions and elephants it's good too, but elephants should be able to be attacked by women, like siege engine, since they have the same effect. Should be too put more depth in this civ, because currently the strategy is massed archer + massed elephants. They still don't have civ bonus or special tech, but do they really need one ? Persians : Since the balance of cav, they are more used than before. Cav + archer is a good combo. The problem with cav it's that they are very expensive and get killed very easily, but can raid very easily too. In general, i think cav should be have more speed. Currently, it exists infantry as fast as cav... and because running isn't implemented yet... a minimal speed of 14 could be good. But because of that less hp and armor or they can't get reached by infantry or something else. In addition of that, animals are as fast as cav... so when you want to gather food from a camel or an antilope, it's quite impossible. Gaia have to be much more slower than currently. Their immortals are good, but the special tech +25% of hp but +20% of building time too is not so useless. Personaly, i never use it, only when i'm on danger. Difference have to be more pronounced than 5%. Something like +25%of hp against +10% only of time building. Or +25% of hp against +10% of ressource costs. Romans : As i said before, i don't understand romans. They really have EVERYTHING. Strong infantry, like the better siege engines... The army camp and the Siege Walls. The only civ that can build on other territory ! Army camp should be nerfed a lot. They are quite cheap now, so why have them as much hp as forts ? Instead of 3000 hp, they should have 2000. Plus, guarissoning 40 people inside is an inside thing. Even forts can't guarrison so much people x') So guarrison 20 people inside, no more. Or perhaps no more than 15, because you still can train units from army camp inside enemies territory... Spartans : To close this very loooong thread, let's talk about spartans. One of the most powerfull infantry of the game. That's good, because they have the worst things after that. Their civ bonus is very intersting : promotion after only one kill. The thing is that after that, you can have an invencible army. Can have a very high ratio kill:death. Women costing 60 food instead of 50 but with an ability of attacking is interesting too, and slows the spartan economy. But as i said, i found some very high imbalance with spartans. Do at moment 0 5 spearmen, and attack the enemy with your 9 spearmen. If it's not a swordsmen civ, and doesn't waits for your rush, you will win in 3 minutes. I don't have any idea on how fix that if it's not by give skirmishers and not spearmen And after that... i really don't know. And battering ram, the normal stuff, something to destroy buildings please. That's the end of the introduction of this topic Let's debate, and sorry for forcing you reading my 13k characters double post with all my english faults. Let's debate \o

Hi guys, I'm here today to talk about balancing civilisations. I'll try to avoid the historic debate, because even with history, gameplay still is important, so i won't use history in this discussion (or put romans an overwhelming faction). So in first place i'll talk about general ideas, and later (tomorrow ? ) enter in more details. Why balancing civilisations ? Because some are too powerfull (mauryans, spartans (i'll explain later)) , and others so useless (gauls), and so somes are more used like others. My idea is that there exists offensive factions, defensive one an polyvalent ones. According to the wiki and tech gave to the civs, i will classify civ like that : Agressives ones : - Britons (no walls, druids enhancing attack) - Gauls (exact copy of Britons) - Mauryans (or so i guess, mediocre defense) - Spartans (have i to explain ? ) Deffensives ones : - Athenians (walls on neutral territory and good defense it's said) - Carthaginians (9000 HP walls, towers incorporated to gates) - Iberians (have i to explain ? ) - Persians (architecture tech and good walls) Polyvalents ones : - Macedonians - Romans (can attack, but aren't so strong) For the polyvalents one i'm less sure of me. If you think should change some civ from one category to another, it can be debated too. So, who cares if a civ is defensive or agressive ? I really want different gameplays and tactics are different from each civ. Some said defensive play can't be done, because agressive ones controls enterily the map so. For begining, defensive civ should be have great armor and weak attack, and the contrary for offsensive ones. Polyvalents have normal armour and normal attack. For example Hannibal is the typical example of defensive unit : quantumstate calculated that were needed 28 immortals persians to kill him. Immortals should be more immortals but have less attack... things like that. Of course, cheaper buildings but less hp for agressive civs, and stronger but more expensive buildings. Perhaps a bit more territory for defensive, like that more place to put towers. Of course towers have to be more powerful in defense than in agressive civ. Like walls. Like forts. The problem is that even putting more hp and fire range and fire rate on towers and forts, if it's too much expensive they won't be used. On the contrary, the most agreessive ones (like sparta) shouldn't have forts, but a building like barrack or army camp which provides siege engine. Agressives have good siege weapons (currently if you agree with my classification, most of the agressive one have siege weapons that sucks so much...) and defensive couter-siege engines (and one siege weapon, don't joke ! ). And because agressive don't have so much walls, towers or forts, no need for powerfull siege engines. According to this ideas, let's balance civs. Currently, there are some that are useless, others that are op. Of course, i don't know so well all strategyes, so i can forget something. OP : - mauryans with archers (not a surprise) : it's not an ended civ, heroes are cheated (Hannibal ? ) and the only one that has dumpstore elephant. So you can go throught the map with your army and your eleph and gathering from any mine on the map. Furthemore, elephants can't be coutered by women, like normal siege weapons. Should be. Archers has better range than iberians towers or forts or catapults. Not normal. - spartans : i found 2 days ago a winning strategy in age 1. Do directly 5 spearman and attack with all 9 spearman. In minute 2, the ennemy can't defend himself. I beat quantum like that in 5 minutes with a ratio kill of 10:26. Second thing is 1 promotion per 1 enemy killed. Spartan infantry is very strong, very hard to defeat. I think only need to put another infantry at the begining of the game than the 4 spearmen and it will be ok. Useless : - gauls : they are on the average on everything, no good point. http://www.quantumst...oup.php?group=6 with spearmen for example, they have one of the worst ratio. No special structure nor good civ thing. For balance, could be for example slow down decay rate of outposts and allow guarrisoning 5 men inside instead of only 1. Like a mini army camp in neutral territory Their navys are the most powerfull one, but because of pathfinding, this is no use currently. That's a shame - britons : same deffects than gauls, it's like a copy of it, but added dogs. Powerfull dogs. The only viable strategy too with britons is with dogs. Celts needs and enhancement to deep its gameplay and have more options.

Why not Mars ? That's the most obvious one

De padres argentinos. Y el que me dice Maradona, lo mato

Yo. Y con ésto nada más se dice ?

Hi people. There are two "bugs" to fix on the website. First one : when you are no signed in, you have a link to "create account" which redirects to the page of "sign up" and you have then to click on the tiny link "Don't have a count yet ?". So or fix the initial link or change the name of the link ^^ Second one : registration mail is saw as spam mail by hotmail. Have a good play, and come on IRC ^^